It's an oddly fascinating comparison though - Helen Flanagan makes some stupid comments and she's absolutely vilified. People rush to climb aboard the bandwagon to claim it's all for "profile" and call her all sorts of names and the papers run OTT front page headlines as well. Roache makes some genuinely offensive remarks about sexual abuse of which he's likely fully aware of what he's saying and it merits a single article in a few outlets and will most likely be put to bed now he's "apologised".
No it's not an oddly fascinating comparison. It's a truly bizarre one. The only connection between these two people is Corrie. That's it! Why you're drawing a parallel between them is just baffling. If you compared him to eg. David Icke or Tom 'CoS' Cruise, then you have a point of sorts, at least then you're comparing like with like in terms of 'unorthodox' beliefs.
Why are people taking this so seriously? He is entitled to his views and they are really of no consquence to anyone else. He is not a politician, he has no power. There are plenty of other people in the world who believe the same as him. There are also plenty of other people in the world with other unusual beliefs.
What has happened to society? An old man spouts his views and everyone gets hot under the collar about it. Let him get on with it and if you don't agree just ignore him.
So, if some opportunist mugger decides to jump him from behind and beat the crap out of him, would he believe that it was something he did in a past life that brought it on and that the mugger should be forgiven and let off scot free?
What has happened to society? An old man spouts his views and everyone gets hot under the collar about it. Let him get on with it and if you don't agree just ignore him.
But he's not just any old man is he, he is a long time star of one of the most popular TV programmes, he knows full well that what he says in a TV interview will affect a lot of people, and he didn't have to say it.
But he's not just any old man is he, he is a long time star of one of the most popular TV programmes, he knows full well that what he says in a TV interview will affect a lot of people, and he didn't have to say it.
'Will affect a lot of people' really :eek:
I don't suppose anyone will be converting to anything based on what he says. They will either agree or disagree according to their own beliefs.
I certainly don't base my views on the rubbish spouted by soap actors
I don't suppose anyone will be converting to anything based on what he says. They will either agree or disagree according to their own beliefs.
I certainly don't base my views on the rubbish spouted by soap actors
I am saying his opinions are extremely hurtful to anyone who has been the victim of abuse, I am not talking about his religious beliefs or the likelihood of anyone being converted to them. Comments like his do no doubt give comfort to some abusers though.
I am saying his opinions are extremely hurtful to anyone who has been the victim of abuse, I am not talking about his religious beliefs or the likelihood of anyone being converted to them. Comments like his do no doubt give comfort to some abusers though.
I still find this hard to believe. Victims of abuse are hurt by the people who preyed on them.
You continue letting yourself be a victim if you take anything seriously spouted by actors from Corrie. Best to just ignore these people.
I still find this hard to believe. Victims of abuse are hurt by the people who preyed on them.
You continue letting yourself be a victim if you take anything seriously spouted by actors from Corrie. Best to just ignore these people.
While that is very true, there's nothing like rubbing salt in the wound, is there (re: Roache's comments)?
Also, it's not about 'letting oneself be a victim'. One does not choose to be a victim of a sexual offence, in childhood or otherwise. Still feeling hurt by the memory of a sexual offence doesn't, in itself, necessitate that you adopt 'victim-mode' status and haven't moved on from the event(s).
I do agree that Roache's remarks are best ignored but seeing as they have been given airtime on national news channels, I don't think it's unjustified that people respond to them.
Anyway, he's apologised so that's one step forward.
I don't suppose anyone will be converting to anything based on what he says. They will either agree or disagree according to their own beliefs.
I certainly don't base my views on the rubbish spouted by soap actors
If you're in the public eye, you do really need to exercise some sort of self-control before making statements that have the potential to cause upset - or at least be prepared for the inevitable backlash. Having said that, the way the media operates does mean that you are likely to be taken out of context in the cause of a good headline. Perhaps people need to be a bit more savvy about the likelihood of that happening as well - especially if they've been in the business as long as BR has been.
So, will BR's opinions affect a lot of people? I suppose that depends on how you define 'affect'. Will it change many people's minds one way or another, probably not. Will it have been forgotten about in a few days time? Probably.
Do people have the right to not be upset by the opinions of other? Within reason, certainly not. By the same term though, if you publicise your opinions about a particular subject, then you're going to have to suck up any criticism that comes your way from the great unwashed, however poorly informed it may be.
While that is very true, there's nothing like rubbing salt in the wound, is there (re: Roache's comments)?
Anyway, he's apologised so that's one step forward.
I found it an empty apology since I don't really believe he no longer thinks what he said. As I said earlier, I suspect his comments & desire to air them come the fact he is full of bile over the fact his colleague of 30+ years Michael Le Vell is currently on trial, so the subject has become rather close to home for him & his fellow showbusiness pals.
If you're in the public eye, you do really need to exercise some sort of self-control before making statements that have the potential to cause upset - or at least be prepared for the inevitable backlash. Having said that, the way the media operates does mean that you are likely to be taken out of context in the cause of a good headline. Perhaps people need to be a bit more savvy about the likelihood of that happening as well - especially if they've been in the business as long as BR has been.
So, will BR's opinions affect a lot of people? I suppose that depends on how you define 'affect'. Will it change many people's minds one way or another, probably not. Will it have been forgotten about in a few days time? Probably.
Do people have the right to not be upset by the opinions of other? Within reason, certainly not. By the same term though, if you publicise your opinions about a particular subject, then you're going to have to suck up any criticism that comes your way from the great unwashed, however poorly informed it may be.
The man has apologized now, so that should be the end of it
Sorry but that is nonsense, I seriously doubt he has undergone a damascene conversion from what he said, so the apology is entirely meaningless. The worry is how many other people have the rather sick beliefs that he seems to have.
Why you're drawing a parallel between them is just baffling
I was simply making an observation based on the fact that the two people concerned are both linked to Coronation Street. I fully appreciate it may not be factually accurate but I never intended it to be ..
The man has apologized now, so that should be the end of it
It's not an apology though .. if he'd said "I'm deeply sorry for my remarks and the offence they caused" then I might be slightly more accepting of it. Instead he says "I'm sorry if anyone has been offended by my remarks" - indicating he stands by everything he said IMO.
Didn't Glenn Hoddle say something similar about disabled people back in the day...?!
Utter madness.
Yes, when I heard about this it reminded me of when Glenn Hoddle said something similar to this when he was the England manager.
I think though that Glenn Hoddle referred to handicapped people rather than sex abuse victims.
Whilst I agree that people in the public eye should be more careful about what they say, his apology is just as meaningless as the statement he made in the first place.
Yes, when I heard about this it reminded me of when Glenn Hoddle said something similar to this when he was the England manager.
I think though that Glenn Hoddle referred to handicapped people rather than sex abuse victims.
Yes, the principle is the same - i.e. that the victims are somehow responsible for their own misfortune through their misdeeds in a previous life.
Certainly not really worth getting in a lather about - there will always be people with stupid opinions about. Definitely worth a gratuitous amount of pointing and laughing at though.
How did the interview get on this subject anyway? The moment hey stopped talking about Corrie or the play he is in he should have stopped the interview or said I am not here to talk about that.
Sacked for saying something many of us find unplatable ? On that basis would we sack any devout religious person from their job when they quoted their beliefs if asked a question ?
We may find some things unpalatable that does not mean someone cannot say them, as long as they are not inciting hatred or violence. The shame is Roache made a couple of valid comments but they are forgotten because he mentioned this other rubbish, hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Its reminding me of Glenn Hoddle who was sacked from the England football managers job after saying the disabled were paying for sins in a previous life.
Amid an outcry from disability groups, politicians and fans, Hoddle, a born-again Christian, sought to defuse the row by saying he was 'so sorry'. His words had been 'misinterpreted' and 'taken out of context'.
It seems a weird point of view but one that should be ridculed rather then a sacking offence,Bill Roache made the mistake of thinking something said in New Zealand would not carry to these shores.
But the views expressed probably are common amongst certain people dependant on their beliefs.
I found it an empty apology since I don't really believe he no longer thinks what he said. As I said earlier, I suspect his comments & desire to air them come the fact he is full of bile over the fact his colleague of 30+ years Michael Le Vell is currently on trial, so the subject has become rather close to home for him & his fellow showbusiness pals.
Could be, could be, yes.
No doubt there will be more to come during and after Le Vell's (is he actually Michael Roberts?) trial, whichever way it goes.
Comments
No it's not an oddly fascinating comparison. It's a truly bizarre one. The only connection between these two people is Corrie. That's it! Why you're drawing a parallel between them is just baffling. If you compared him to eg. David Icke or Tom 'CoS' Cruise, then you have a point of sorts, at least then you're comparing like with like in terms of 'unorthodox' beliefs.
I couldn't agree more.
I do not agree with this ,
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/s3/coronation-street/news/a466776/coronation-street-bill-roache-sorry-for-sex-abuse-comments.html
"everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives" and that those who live "pure love" will not be victims
but whilst its legal to have an opinion he is entitled to his even though it is pretty unpalatable to my mind
But I do agree with some of his other comments
Paedophilia is absolutely horrendous. Paedophiles should be sought out, rooted out and dealt with.
and
unless there is overwhleming evidence and until such time as our tabloid media learns how to behave correctly I also agree with this
These people are instantly stigmatised, some will be innocent, some will not, but until such time as it's proven there should be anonymity for both."
But he's not just any old man is he, he is a long time star of one of the most popular TV programmes, he knows full well that what he says in a TV interview will affect a lot of people, and he didn't have to say it.
Glad to help.
'Will affect a lot of people' really :eek:
I don't suppose anyone will be converting to anything based on what he says. They will either agree or disagree according to their own beliefs.
I certainly don't base my views on the rubbish spouted by soap actors
I still find this hard to believe. Victims of abuse are hurt by the people who preyed on them.
You continue letting yourself be a victim if you take anything seriously spouted by actors from Corrie. Best to just ignore these people.
While that is very true, there's nothing like rubbing salt in the wound, is there (re: Roache's comments)?
Also, it's not about 'letting oneself be a victim'. One does not choose to be a victim of a sexual offence, in childhood or otherwise. Still feeling hurt by the memory of a sexual offence doesn't, in itself, necessitate that you adopt 'victim-mode' status and haven't moved on from the event(s).
I do agree that Roache's remarks are best ignored but seeing as they have been given airtime on national news channels, I don't think it's unjustified that people respond to them.
Anyway, he's apologised so that's one step forward.
If you're in the public eye, you do really need to exercise some sort of self-control before making statements that have the potential to cause upset - or at least be prepared for the inevitable backlash. Having said that, the way the media operates does mean that you are likely to be taken out of context in the cause of a good headline. Perhaps people need to be a bit more savvy about the likelihood of that happening as well - especially if they've been in the business as long as BR has been.
So, will BR's opinions affect a lot of people? I suppose that depends on how you define 'affect'. Will it change many people's minds one way or another, probably not. Will it have been forgotten about in a few days time? Probably.
Do people have the right to not be upset by the opinions of other? Within reason, certainly not. By the same term though, if you publicise your opinions about a particular subject, then you're going to have to suck up any criticism that comes your way from the great unwashed, however poorly informed it may be.
Good post. Sums it up quite well, really
I was simply making an observation based on the fact that the two people concerned are both linked to Coronation Street. I fully appreciate it may not be factually accurate but I never intended it to be ..
It's not an apology though .. if he'd said "I'm deeply sorry for my remarks and the offence they caused" then I might be slightly more accepting of it. Instead he says "I'm sorry if anyone has been offended by my remarks" - indicating he stands by everything he said IMO.
Yes, when I heard about this it reminded me of when Glenn Hoddle said something similar to this when he was the England manager.
I think though that Glenn Hoddle referred to handicapped people rather than sex abuse victims.
Yes, the principle is the same - i.e. that the victims are somehow responsible for their own misfortune through their misdeeds in a previous life.
Certainly not really worth getting in a lather about - there will always be people with stupid opinions about. Definitely worth a gratuitous amount of pointing and laughing at though.
Who knows, maybe it's a publicity stunt...
Erm... is he?
What a disgrace.
Sacked for saying something many of us find unplatable ? On that basis would we sack any devout religious person from their job when they quoted their beliefs if asked a question ?
We may find some things unpalatable that does not mean someone cannot say them, as long as they are not inciting hatred or violence. The shame is Roache made a couple of valid comments but they are forgotten because he mentioned this other rubbish, hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/1999/jan/30/newsstory.sport7
Amid an outcry from disability groups, politicians and fans, Hoddle, a born-again Christian, sought to defuse the row by saying he was 'so sorry'. His words had been 'misinterpreted' and 'taken out of context'.
It seems a weird point of view but one that should be ridculed rather then a sacking offence,Bill Roache made the mistake of thinking something said in New Zealand would not carry to these shores.
But the views expressed probably are common amongst certain people dependant on their beliefs.
Could be, could be, yes.
No doubt there will be more to come during and after Le Vell's (is he actually Michael Roberts?) trial, whichever way it goes.